Cognitive stimulation is essential to maintain and/or improve the cognitive function of the elderly.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive stimulation is essential to maintain and / or improve the cognitive function of the elderly. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the application of a Cognitive Sti- mulation Program on the maintenance or improvement of the cognitive function of the elderly at the levels of orientation, memory, calculation and language. It was also intended to evaluate complementary measures of the impact of the intervention program, name- ly on the quality of life, depressive symptoms, in the eight cognitive domains, executive function, visuospatial capacity, memory, attention, concentration and working memory, language and orientation. Method: The program was performed in 14 sessions for seven weeks, with pre-and post-test measurements. The final sample consisted of seven elderly men, four men and three women aged between 68-89 years (80.29 ± 8.83 years), who responded to the following measures: Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Quality of life (IAQdV-8), Geriatric De- pression Scale (GDS-15) and Cognitive Decline Test (6-CIT). Results: The post-test cognitive decline in relation to the pre-test decreased significantly (6_CIT), with an improvement in the cognitive function of the elderly. The improvement of some indicators of cognitive function is positively correlated with the self-perception of quality of life with negatively depressive symptomatology. Conclusions: The administration of Cognitive Stimulation Programs contributes to an im- provement of the cognitive function in the elderly and an increase in the quality of life. Key-words: Cognitive function; memory; quality of life and depression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".